Originally Posted by
deltabound
I'm a huge believer in highly structured, mission oriented training programs like Lufthansa's direct entry program or those used by the US military. Every flight is specifically designed to train, evaluate, and provide experience that closely simulates what those pilots will experience on a daily basis. The academics are of a much higher caliber and far more comprehensive than the jokes that are the ATP written (or Inst., Commercial Pilot, CFI, etc.). In this sort of program candidates are ready to be co-pilots on day number one, regardless of actual flight hours.
[snip]
Personally, I'd rather see a formula that takes the type of training history into account and formalize minimum hiring requirements on that basis . . . not unlike the JAA, which has something like 14 pretty difficult exams plus sim rides to get fully checked out. Coupled that with a mentoring program mandating new airline hires fly with a highly expereinced captain and you'd actually improve safety. This will never, happen, of course.
I have had this thought as well. Aside from the lack of will to implement such a program, I see at least a few of other problems:
1) Depending on how you define "highly experienced," a number of airlines might have difficulty scraping up enough captains to meet that criteria.
2) Again, given the recent circumstances, exactly how do we define "highly experienced?" Total time, years flying 121, time on type, check airman, some combination of all of the above?
3) I still think one gains a lot of good experience from both PIC time (be it CFI'ing, 135, or 91). Such a program pretty much eliminates that experience.
4) I also believe one gains experience (call it seasoning) from working as a pilot for a longer chronological period, particularly when it comes to dealing with weather (even more so when you are the PIC).
It certainly appears that Lufthansa's program is successful for them, but could such a program really work in the US, given the way incompetent managements have scuttled many of the carriers, mainline flying has been outsourced, ect?
Personally, I'd like to see a combination of both - some sort of requirement for more useful knowledge (rather than how many flight attendants, fire extinguishers, and megaphones are required) for the ATP written, perhaps even a board type exam. I would like to see the overall barrier to entry to the career raised, which would also help to reduce the glut of pilots which depresses compensation. Make the career a true profession, and insist we be appropriately compensated.
By doing so, you will improve the quality of pilots in the cockpit, in turn improve safety.